Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

For PM "Who is a Christian"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    You'll have to do better than that. Demonstrate how the surrounding context would change the meaning of the verses I quoted. And simply pointing out that other people disagree is not an argument. You need to show that my understanding of scripture is incorrect and/or that theirs is (also) correct.
    As I said, your understanding of scripture is based on assumptions which need not be granted. Case in point: your quotes of Colossians and Mark decrying 'tradition'. You read these with sola scriptura already in place. It's small wonder that they serve to enforce such a view. Of course, we could pretty easily point out that one need not set aside the commands of God in order to observe certain traditions, or that tradition is also a means for transmitting the commands of God (which is pretty much a given in a system based on oral tradition). Rather, we could look at the actual context and figure out pretty easily that those verses are simply saying that "this is how we've done things" doesn't necessarily mean that this is how God wants you to act. Tradition can be in conflict with right behavior, but it need not be.
    I'm not here anymore.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
      Perhaps, but that is not how CP differentiated between the politicians who were simply "talking the talk" vs the Sheriff and Police Chief who were actually "walking the walk".
      The difference appears to be dedication. I like straight-talk, so if you think I'm mistaken I prefer you saying outright how and why.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
        Not necessarily. For instance take someone who has political aspirations who figures that attending a popular church regularly would improve his chances. He may be nominally religious, an agnostic or even an atheist but still sees an advantage to attending church regularly.

        So he routinely goes to service so that he can be seen attending and make contacts but pretty much zones out while the minister/pastor/priest gives his sermon thinking instead about the game being played on TV later that afternoon, if he can still get a round of golf in or whatever.

        The point being that such a person, although he goes to church regularly, could hardly be considered a Christian based upon his church attendance.
        So it's a dedication of mind, then?

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
          "going to church" is not necessarily worship.
          Sure. The question then is what proper worship looks like, as a rule.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post
            The difference appears to be dedication. I like straight-talk, so if you think I'm mistaken I prefer you saying outright how and why.
            I don't know how I could be more outright than I've already been.
            ~Formerly known as Chrawnus~

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
              I don't know how I could be more outright than I've already been.
              I'm done responding to you in this topic.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post
                I'm done responding to you in this topic.
                Bet you a dollar you're not!
                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                  I completely agree. That's why I limit it to a small set of general beliefs. An atheist label tells you a person doesn't believe in a deity. It doesn't tell you why, or what else that person might believe, or necessarily how strong their disbelief is. To insist that it should seems to expect more than is reasonable.
                  That would be because the definition of an atheist is relatively simple and limited to small set of general beliefs. The opposite of which wouldn't be "Christian", but "theist" which is likewise relatively simple and limited to small set of general beliefs.

                  However, even within the small set of beliefs associated with atheism the label has come up for debate. Is an atheist one who does not believe in god/s, or is an atheist one who lacks belief in god/s? Some self-proclaimed atheists will throw a conniption fit for even suggesting the former over the latter.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                    I would actually argue that only a small set of general beliefs is required to identify as an adherent. As you point out, we have no problem using "Muslim" in such a way, because we rightly recognize that they belong to the same system even if there are huge doctrinal differences. I suspect if you asked a Muslim what makes a True Muslim, you'd see a similar set of responses as we typically see from Christians.
                    And I have no problem with adopting such a rule of thumb for general sociological conversations. Once this is discussed within the realm of Christian theology, the definitions can reasonably change because we have left the realm of sociology (which professes neutrality) and entered a realm with an objective POV (even if it's not always clear to discern exactly what makes it up).
                    "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                      As I said, your understanding of scripture is based on assumptions which need not be granted. Case in point: your quotes of Colossians and Mark decrying 'tradition'. You read these with sola scriptura already in place. It's small wonder that they serve to enforce such a view. Of course, we could pretty easily point out that one need not set aside the commands of God in order to observe certain traditions, or that tradition is also a means for transmitting the commands of God (which is pretty much a given in a system based on oral tradition). Rather, we could look at the actual context and figure out pretty easily that those verses are simply saying that "this is how we've done things" doesn't necessarily mean that this is how God wants you to act. Tradition can be in conflict with right behavior, but it need not be.
                      Yep... I knew your argument would fall apart once you tried explaining why you think I'm wrong.

                      The verses I quoted are quite clearly talking about human traditions that contradict the Word of God, and that's exactly how I'm using them in my argument. If the Bible says, "Do X and Y and you will be saved," but man comes along and says, "No, you only need to do X," or "No, you must do X, Y, and Z " (where Z is not found in scripture), then such a man is subtracting from or adding to what God has ordained and therefore speaks blasphemy and is in clear conflict with the verses I have cited.
                      Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                      But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                      Than a fool in the eyes of God


                      From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                        Creeds would be a useful start if everyone actually affirmed them. Is there a regulatory authority that enforces acceptance of the creed? Without such a thing, can they really be binding?
                        The Nicene Creed was established (and later modified) at ecumenical councils as a church-wide litmus test for orthodoxy. There were creeds before that (recited at baptism), but they were not uniform. Ecumenical councils were intended to be church-wide regulatory authority; if something was promulgated by a church-wide council, not rejected by the church at large, and subsequently confirmed at another church-wide council, it was binding on the entire church. This worked, by and large, until Rome went its own way in the 11th century. Even so, the church is defined by the Nicene Creed in both Orthodoxy and (as modified) Roman Catholicism. It wasn't until the Reformation that people started formulating their own creeds, ending up with the current bewildering plethora of options. See, for example, Jaroslav Pelikan's Creeds and Confessions of Faith in the Christian Tradition, a massive 4-volume work (which even then is not exhaustive).
                        Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. St. John Chrysostom

                        Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                        sigpic
                        I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                          Yep... I knew your argument would fall apart once you tried explaining why you think I'm wrong.

                          The verses I quoted are quite clearly talking about human traditions that contradict the Word of God, and that's exactly how I'm using them in my argument. If the Bible says, "Do X and Y and you will be saved," but man comes along and says, "No, you only need to do X," or "No, you must do X, Y, and Z " (where Z is not found in scripture), then such a man is subtracting from or adding to what God has ordained and therefore speaks blasphemy and is in clear conflict with the verses I have cited.
                          This...doesn't work. There's nothing in there at all about adding to or subtracting from God's word. That's your addition. The scriptures in question are solely about traditions contradicted God's commands. That's not the same thing. There's nothing wrong with those traditions, especially when you can't deny that oral tradition is the foundation. The problem with tradition is when it's given priority over God's commands. Jesus' issue with the Pharisees is continually one where they treasure the letter and not the spirit of the law, and that's clearly portrayed in the full context of Mark. My argument hasn't fallen apart in the slightest.
                          I'm not here anymore.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                            The Nicene Creed was established (and later modified) at ecumenical councils as a church-wide litmus test for orthodoxy. There were creeds before that (recited at baptism), but they were not uniform. Ecumenical councils were intended to be church-wide regulatory authority; if something was promulgated by a church-wide council, not rejected by the church at large, and subsequently confirmed at another church-wide council, it was binding on the entire church. This worked, by and large, until Rome went its own way in the 11th century. Even so, the church is defined by the Nicene Creed in both Orthodoxy and (as modified) Roman Catholicism. It wasn't until the Reformation that people started formulating their own creeds, ending up with the current bewildering plethora of options. See, for example, Jaroslav Pelikan's Creeds and Confessions of Faith in the Christian Tradition, a massive 4-volume work (which even then is not exhaustive).
                            Right. There was a time when the creeds were binding, but we're not in that time anymore. Where does that leave us in terms of the thread title? The creeds are still a good test for orthodoxy, but I think most people would argue that you could be a Real Christian and not even know they exist. Even if they did, affirmation of the creeds is a doctrinal question. It doesn't address behavior, which seems to be a big component for how people judge someone to be a Real Christian.
                            I'm not here anymore.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                              Right. There was a time when the creeds were binding, but we're not in that time anymore.
                              They're actually still binding for the majority of Christians; even the 'non-creedal' groups tend to have some verbal requirement for baptism.
                              Where does that leave us in terms of the thread title? The creeds are still a good test for orthodoxy, but I think most people would argue that you could be a Real Christian and not even know they exist. Even if they did, affirmation of the creeds is a doctrinal question. It doesn't address behavior, which seems to be a big component for how people judge someone to be a Real Christian.
                              True. Even when the universal creed was promulgated, IIRC, it was acknowledged that joining the church via the recitation of the creed did not necessarily imply moving from the goats to the sheep.
                              Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. St. John Chrysostom

                              Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                              sigpic
                              I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                                This...doesn't work. There's nothing in there at all about adding to or subtracting from God's word. That's your addition. The scriptures in question are solely about traditions contradicted God's commands. That's not the same thing. There's nothing wrong with those traditions, especially when you can't deny that oral tradition is the foundation. The problem with tradition is when it's given priority over God's commands. Jesus' issue with the Pharisees is continually one where they treasure the letter and not the spirit of the law, and that's clearly portrayed in the full context of Mark. My argument hasn't fallen apart in the slightest.
                                "There's nothing in there at all about adding to or subtracting from God's word."

                                You sure about that?

                                "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll" (Revelation 22:18-19). There's no reason to think that warning applies only to the book of Revelation since the entire Bible is God's word from cover to cover.

                                "The scriptures in question are solely about traditions [contradicting] God's commands."

                                Exactly. I have not argued otherwise.

                                The scripture is quite clear: anybody who believes that salvation comes by any means other than what God has ordained is not a Christian. "Depart from me, you evildoer, for I don't know you!"
                                Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                                But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                                Than a fool in the eyes of God


                                From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by seer, Today, 06:17 AM
                                0 responses
                                13 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post seer
                                by seer
                                 
                                Started by Bill the Cat, Yesterday, 02:21 PM
                                5 responses
                                51 views
                                3 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by Cow Poke, 01-20-2022, 01:20 PM
                                12 responses
                                75 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by rogue06, 01-20-2022, 09:16 AM
                                34 responses
                                205 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Cow Poke, 01-20-2022, 09:15 AM
                                3 responses
                                39 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Working...
                                X